AMD Instinct MI300A vs Intel Arc Pro B50 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains benchmark results for the Intel Arc Pro B50, while the AMD Instinct MI300A has no benchmark entries. This means all direct numerical comparisons come from the Intel card's measurements and its position relative to other GPUs in the database.

The Arc Pro B50 delivers an average benchmark score of 2660, placing it in the 17th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 with an average score of 2662, meaning the Arc Pro B50 trails by just 0.1%. The NVIDIA Quadro K1100M sits at 2664, a 0.2% gap, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 scores 2645, which the Arc Pro B50 beats by 0.6%. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER records 2690, putting the Arc Pro B50 1.1% behind.

Looking at individual tests, the Arc Pro B50 shows its strongest result in Passmark G3D with a score of 12553. The Passmark GPU Compute test records 6037, while the G2D test reaches 717. In DirectX workloads, the Passmark DirectX 11 test scores 100, DirectX 9 scores 144, DirectX 12 scores 64, and DirectX 10 scores 58. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test produces a score of 1604.

The data shows a clear pattern: the Arc Pro B50 performs near the level of entry-level discrete GPUs from earlier generations. Its 0.1% deficit to the GT 1030 and 0.2% deficit to the Quadro K1100M indicate that in the database's aggregate scoring, these three cards are effectively interchangeable. The 0.6% advantage over the GT 440 is marginal but real, while the 1.1% gap to the RTX 5070 SUPER shows the performance ceiling for this Intel card.

Since the MI300A has no benchmark scores, no head-to-head wins can be attributed to either card. The database records zero wins for both products.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Arc Pro B50 compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Arc Pro B50 scores 2660 on average, which is 0.1% below the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 (2662), 0.2% below the NVIDIA Quadro K1100M (2664), 0.6% above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 (2645), and 1.1% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER (2690).

Q: What is the strongest benchmark result for the Arc Pro B50?

A: The Passmark G3D test produces the highest individual score at 12553, followed by Passmark GPU Compute at 6037 and Passmark G2D at 717.

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI300A have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No, the database contains no benchmark entries for the MI300A. Its average benchmark score is 0, and it has no nearest rivals listed.

Q: What DirectX performance does the Arc Pro B50 show?

A: Passmark DirectX 9 scores 144, DirectX 11 scores 100, DirectX 12 scores 64, and DirectX 10 scores 58. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test records 1604.

Q: What is the Arc Pro B50's percentile ranking?

A: The Arc Pro B50 sits in the 17th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 2660.

Q: What is the Arc Pro B50's launch MSRP?

A: The launch MSRP is 349 USD.

The Verdict

The data supports different conclusions for each product. The AMD Instinct MI300A is a compute-oriented accelerator with no benchmark results in the database, making performance assessment impossible from recorded measurements. Its specifications indicate a large-scale device, but without scores, the database cannot rank it against any competitor.

The Intel Arc Pro B50, by contrast, has clear measurements. It performs within a narrow band around 2660 average score, matching the GT 1030 and Quadro K1100M almost exactly, slightly above the GT 440, and slightly below the RTX 5070 SUPER. The 17th percentile ranking places it firmly in the entry-level segment of the database.

For users selecting between these two, the data offers only one measurable choice. The Arc Pro B50 has verified performance data, a production status of Active, and a confirmed release date. The MI300A has no benchmark evidence, no production status, and no measurable performance metrics. The database indicates that only one of these products can be assessed, and that is the Intel Arc Pro B50.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every recorded specification. The AMD Instinct MI300A uses a 5 nm process at TSMC with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The Intel Arc Pro B50 also uses a 5 nm process at TSMC but packs 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die. Transistor density reflects this: the MI300A reaches 150.4M per mm², while the Arc Pro B50 achieves 72.1M per mm².

Clock speeds differ substantially. The MI300A has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 2100 MHz, with memory clocked at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The Arc Pro B50 starts at 1700 MHz base and boosts to 2600 MHz, with memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Memory configurations are vastly different. The MI300A carries 128 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc Pro B50 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, producing 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute units diverge completely. The MI300A has 14592 shading units, 912 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The Arc Pro B50 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Arc Pro B50 also includes 16 RT cores, while the MI300A records none. Pixel rate for the MI300A is 0 MPixel/s, versus 41.60 GPixel/s for the Arc Pro B50. Texture rates are 1,915.2 GTexel/s and 332.8 GTexel/s respectively. FP32 performance measures 61.29 TFLOPS for the MI300A and 10.65 TFLOPS for the Arc Pro B50. The Arc Pro B50 also lists FP16 at 21.30 TFLOPS (2:1), while the MI300A has no FP16 figure.

Power and physical specifications separate them further. The MI300A has a TDP of 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W, while the Arc Pro B50 draws 70 W with a 250 W suggested PSU. The MI300A uses an OAM Module slot width, the Arc Pro B50 is Dual-slot. Neither uses power connectors. The MI300A connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, the Arc Pro B50 via PCIe 5.0 x8. Display outputs: the MI300A has none, the Arc Pro B50 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The MI300A measures no listed dimensions; the Arc Pro B50 is 167 mm by 69 mm by 40 mm. The Arc Pro B50 has a production status of Active; the MI300A has none recorded.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip under the CDNA 3.0 architecture, belonging to the Instinct (MIx) generation. The Arc Pro B50 uses the BMG-G21 chip under Xe2-HPG, part of the Battlemage (Pro Series) generation. Both are fabricated on 5 nm at TSMC, but the transistor counts and die sizes reflect entirely different design goals.

The MI300A's CDNA 3.0 is built for massive parallel compute, evidenced by 14592 shading units and a 8192-bit memory bus. Its 128 GB HBM3 pool and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth are oriented toward data-intensive workloads. The absence of display outputs and the 0 ROP count confirm a compute-first design with no graphics output path. API support is listed as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating no consumer graphics API compatibility.

The Arc Pro B50's Xe2-HPG targets professional graphics. Its 16 RT cores support ray tracing, and its API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs provide display connectivity. The 128-bit GDDR6 memory bus and 16 GB capacity suit workstation rendering tasks rather than massive compute arrays.

The MI300A's release date is 2023-12-05, with a predecessor of Radeon Instinct. The Arc Pro B50 released on 2025-09-04, with no predecessor recorded. The MI300A has no launch MSRP; the Arc Pro B50 lists 349 USD. The MI300A has no successor, and neither product lists a successor.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300A wins in raw specification comparisons where the database provides no benchmark evidence. Its 61.29 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth are the highest recorded figures in this comparison. For workloads requiring massive memory capacity, the 128 GB HBM3 configuration is unmatched by the Arc Pro B50's 16 GB GDDR6. The 8192-bit bus width provides a memory interface that the 128-bit bus of the Arc Pro B50 cannot approach. The 153,000 million transistor count and 1017 mm² die size indicate a device built for extreme compute density.

The Intel Arc Pro B50 wins in every measurable benchmark category, since the MI300A has no scores. The Arc Pro B50's 17th percentile ranking and 2660 average score are the only performance data points in this comparison. Its 16 RT cores give it ray tracing capability that the MI300A lacks entirely. The Arc Pro B50's display outputs and full graphics API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4) make it usable as a graphics card, which the MI300A is not. The 70 W TDP with a 250 W suggested PSU is far more accessible than the 750 W TDP and 1150 W suggested PSU of the MI300A. The Arc Pro B50's Active production status and 349 USD launch MSRP provide availability data that the MI300A lacks.

For graphics-oriented tasks such as rendering, ray-traced workloads, or any use requiring display output, the Arc Pro B50 is the only option with supporting data. For compute-intensive applications where memory bandwidth and FP32 throughput dominate, the MI300A's specifications point to superior capability, but no benchmark results exist to confirm this in the database. The data shows a clear split: the Arc Pro B50 is a measured, functional graphics solution, while the MI300A is a specification-heavy accelerator without recorded performance evidence.